Business_1911_018 Henry H Rolapp

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : vs. : THE AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY AND OTHERS, : Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x Answer of Amalgamated Sugar Company. Comes now the defendant, Amalgamated Sugar Company, and for answer to the petition herein: I Admits that it is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Utah, with office and principal place of business at Ogden, Utah; that its authorized capital stock is Four Million Dollars, which at the time of the filing of the petition herein consisted of 26,666 shares of Preferred Stock and 13,334 shares of Common Stock, each of the par value of One Hundred Dollars, of which only 17,010 shares of Preferred stock and 8,504 shares of Common stock were issued and outstanding; that since 1902 it has owned and operated factories for the manufacture and refining of sugar, located respectively at Logan, Utah, Ogden, Utah, and La Grande, Oregon; that at all such times it has been engaged in interstate trade and commerce in beet sugar; and that defendants, David Eccles and Joseph F. Smith, together with the persons named in the petition, constitute its Board of Directors and officers. II Admits that the Ogden Sugar Company was incorporated under the laws of Utah in January, 1898, with an authorized capital stock of the par value of $500,000.00; and that from October, 1898, to July, 1902, it operated its factory at Ogden, Utah, and was engaged in interstate trade and commerce in beet sugar. Admits that the Logan Sugar Company was incorporated under the laws of Utah in December, 1901, with an authorized capital stock of the par value of $500,000.00; and that prior to July, 1902, it operated its factory at Logan, Utah, and was engaged in interstate trade and commerce in beet sugar. Admits that the Oregon Sugar Company was incorporated under the laws of Oregon, in February 1898, with an authorized capital stock of the par value of $500,00.00; and that from October, 1898, to July, 1902, it operated its factory at La Grande, Oregon, and was engaged in interstate trade and commerce in beet sugar. Admits that these three companies were at all such times and ever since have been independent of all other beet or cane sugar refining companies in the United States, but this defendant denies that said Ogden Sugar Company, Logan Sugar Company or Oregon Sugar Company were at any time in active competition with each other, or were incorporated for such purposes, but on the contrary, that during their entire corporate existence they were in fact only branches, factories or departments of the same concern, and although incorporated separately for commercial and legal convenience, yet they were at all times owned and controlled by substantially the same stockholders, and operated under the direction of substantially the same persons, holding positions of directors and officers in each of such respective legal entities, and that substantially the same stockholders and substantially the same directors and officers who owned the stock and controlled the affairs of said constituent corporations, do now own the stock and control the affairs, and all times since its organization, -2-
have owned the stock and controlled the affairs of this defendant, Amalgamated Sugar Company. III This defendant denies that in May, 1902, or at any other time, or at all, the defendant, David Eccles, acting for himself, or in conjunction with Henry O. Havemeyer for the American Sugar Refining Company, or at all, purchased one-half or any other portion of the issued capital stock of the Ogden Sugar Company, Logan Sugar Company, or Oregon Sugar Company; but alleges the facts to be, that on or about May, 1902, the American Sugar Refining Company, agreed to and with defendant, David Eccles, acting for and on behalf of the principal stockholders and directors of the said corporation, that the said American Sugar Refining Company should purchase from each of the stockholders of each of said companies, one-half of such stockholders’ holding. That thereafter each of the stockholders of the interested companies accepted the offer thus made, and authorized the said David Eccles, for and on their behalf, to sell to the said American Sugar Refining Company, one-half of each of their holding, whereby the said American Sugar Refining Company became the owner of one-half of the capital stock of said respective corporations. IV This defendant admits that in July, 1902, the Logan Sugar Company and the Ogden Sugar Company, under and in pursuance of the laws of the State of Utah, were merged and consolidated into one corporation known as the Amalgamated Sugar Company, and that subsequently the Oregon Sugar Company sold all of its properties and assets to
the said Amalgamated Sugar Company, and that thereby the said last-named company became, and now is, the legal owner and holder of all of the property of the Logan Sugar Company, the Ogden Sugar Company, and the Oregon Sugar Company, which properties had theretofore been owned, held and operated, as in this answer heretofore set out. V This defendant denies that the said David Eccles or the said American Sugar refining company, or both, caused the said Ogden Sugar Company and the said Logan Sugar Company, to be merged or that the said sugar companies, or either of them, have been influenced, directed or controlled by the said American Sugar Refining Company in any way. Denies that the said David Eccles or H. O. Havemeyer, or the American Sugar Refining Company, or either, or all of them, caused the Oregon Sugar Company to sell and deliver its factory, or any or all of its assets to the Amalgamated Sugar Company, or that the said American Sugar Refining Company, or H.O. Havemeyer, or David Eccles, or this defendant, or either, or all, or any of them, restrained the said Oregon Sugar Company from engaging in any business, or that it is restrained at all. VI This defendant denies that ever since August, 1902, or at all, it has been dominated or controlled by, or acting in cooperation or concert with, the American Sugar Refining Company, or any other corporation, or person, except its own duly elected Board of Directors; but alleges the facts to be that neither the said American Sugar Refining Company, nor any of its agents, officers -4-
or employes have ever demanded, suggested, or proposed to have any person represent it upon the Board of Directors of said Amalgamated Sugar Company; nor has it now, or ever had any representative on such Board; nor has any person interested in the American Sugar Refining Company, ever been present at, or participated in the proceedings of the stockholders’ or directors’ meetings of the said Amalgamated Sugar Company. VII This defendant denies that the officers and directors of this Company were or are elected by the American Sugar Refining Company, or by any other person or corporation except the stockholders of this defendant company, or that the business or affairs of this Company were or are conducted in unison or free from competition with the American Sugar Refining Company, or any other company, in which said American Sugar Refining Company held or holds stock; or that this defendant cooperated with any of the other defendant companies, or any other companies in such business, trade or commerce, or that this defendant at any time agreed or now agrees with its co-defendants, or either, or any of them, as to the markets in which, or the time when, or the price at which its refined sugar shall or should be sold, or that any selling was or is done by this defendant at the instance, direction, request or suggestion, or any person or corporation whatsoever. VIII Denies that the American Sugar Refining Company, -5-
or any of its agents, officers or employes at any time, or in any way, directed, suggested or advised, or in any manner dominated or controlled, or attempted to dominate or control the said Amalgamated Sugar company, or any of its officers, agents or employes in any matter, and especially not in relation to any matter concerning the management or conduct of its business, or the purchase or sale of its raw or manufactured products, or the price at which same should be marketed, or the amount that should be produced, or the territory in which same should be sold or purchased. IX This defendant denies that through the American Sugar Refining Company, or otherwise, or at all, it has or does hold stock in, or dominates the affairs of, or is acting in cooperation or concert with fourteen, or any other number of beet sugar companies, or that this defendant, through the American Sugar Refining Company, or otherwise, or at all, holds stock in or has at any time dominated the affairs of, or is acting in cooperation or concert with, the companies designated in the petition as the “Utah group”, or that by an action of this defendant, interstate commerce is unreasonably, or unlawfully, or at all, restrained or monopolized. X This defendant denies the existence of any aggregation of sugar companies, known as the “Utah group”, or that such term has ever been applied or used prior to its origin in the petition herein, and this defendant also denies that in the summer of 1901 four separate or distinct or competing concerns were engaged in the manufacture of, or in the interstate trade or commerce in, -6-
beet sugar in the states designated in the petition as belonging to the “Utah group”, but avers the facts to be that the Utah Sugar Company was then an organized concern with sugar factories and slicing stations situated in Southern Utah; that the Logan Sugar factory was neither operated nor organized until late in the fall of 1901; and alleges that the Ogden Sugar Company, having a factory in Northern Utah, and the Oregon Sugar Company, having a factory in Eastern Oregon, in connection with the subsequently erected Logan factory aforesaid, were then and ever have been owned, operated, controlled and conducted as in this answer heretofore set out. XI Defendant denies that the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company was organized for the purpose of obstructing interstate trade or commerce in beet sugar, either by combining competing concerns or by acquiring a monopoly or parts of the same, or that as the principal instrumentality, or at all, the said Utah-Idaho Sugar Company dominates the beet sugar industry in the so-called “Utah group” of States, or so far as this defendant is concerned, prevents effective competition, or attempts to, or does unlawfully, or at all, restrain interstate trade or commerce, or monopolizes a part thereof, or monopolizes it at all. XII This defendant denies that it has for its purpose or object the controlling power or direction over all or any, persons or corporations in the United States engaged in interstate or foreign trade or commerce, in raw sugar, -7-
sugar beets, refined sugar, molasses, syrups, or other by-products of raw sugar or sugar beets, or over all or any interstate trade or commerce, or over the management or conduct thereof by all or any persons or corporations, or to prevent, restrain or destroy all or any competition therein among said or any persons or corporations, or to prevent or restrain all or any persons from engaging independently in such trade or commerce, or from competing with it therein, or to control or arbitrarily fix the times when, or the places where, or the amounts in which, or the price at which, raw sugar or sugar beets may be purchased, or refined sugar or other by-products may be sold, or that such prices are to be, or are, arbitrary or non-competitive, or not the result of the untrammeled working of the law of supply and demand, or that the price in the case of raw sugar or sugar beets is to be lower, or in the case of refined sugar or by-products is to be higher, than would otherwise obtain, or that this defendant is engaged in any unlawful or other combination or conspiracy, or that any of these things have to a great degree, or at all, been accomplished by this defendant to the irreparable injury or damage of the people of the United States, or at all. XIII This defendant denies that it is combining or concerting with any other company or person, with the purpose or effect of preventing competition, or unlawfully, or at all, restraining interstate or foreign trade or commerce in sugar or related articles, or that it is acquiring or holding a monopoly thereof, or that it is attempting to monopolize, or that it is in combination or conspiracy with any other person or corporation to monopolize parts of the trade or commerce in such commodities; and alleges -8-
that it is impossible for this defendant to do so, its entire output being less than two-fifths of one per cent. of the sugar sold or consumed in the United States. XIV Defendant denies that it has ever made, or does now make agreements with any other person or corporation whatsoever, to apportion, or that it has apportioned with any person or corporation whatever, the trade or commerce in raw or refined sugar, or sugar beets in the United States; or that it has by itself, or in conjunction with any other person or corporation, defined or apportioned the territory in the United States, in which, or the time during which, any of them should be allowed to assist each other to control or monopolize the sale of its refined sugar in such territory; or that by such or any power, or by any unlawful agreements, combinations or conspiracies, or at all, it has been able to control, or has controlled, or does now control or fix the price at which raw sugar or sugar beets are purchased, or at which refined sugar is sold, by any person or corporation in the United States, engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling refined sugar; or that for the purpose of reducing the demand for raw sugar, or the market price thereof, or for the purpose of reducing the amount of refined sugar manufactured, or for the purpose of increasing the demand therefor, or for any other purpose, this defendant has from time to time, or at all, closed down, dismantled or sold numerous or any sugar refineries or factories belonging to it, or which it had purchased from previous competitors, or from any other person or corporation whatsoever. XV This defendant denies that by the use of enormous -9-
or any wealth, or as a result of combination or conspiracy, or at all, this defendant has been able to, or has sold its sugar at less than cost in order to drive competition out of the sugar trade, or that it has repeatedly, or at any time done so, or has caused great or any loss or damage to competitors, or that as a result thereof many, or any, competitors, either out of fear of total loss or destruction, or otherwise, or at all, have at any time sold their factories or business to this defendant, or have permanently or at all retired from such business, or that by the use of great or any wealth, or at all, this defendant has erected factories or operated the same in neighborhoods where independent concerns were about to enter the sugar trade as its competitors, or that, having erected such factories, it has operated the same and sold its finished product at less than the current price therefore, or that thereby, or at all, it has made it impossible for any man, or combination of men of moderate or any other means, to engage in such business, or that the result has been that such or any prospective competitors have been prevented or restrained in any manner from entering or engaging therein, or have been prevented or restrained at all. XVI This defendant denies that at any time when independent concerns have undertaken to start in the beet sugar business, this defendant has, upon learning thereof, or at all, gone into the immediate neighborhood of such proposed competitors, and by the means of great or any wealth, or at all, erected or put into operation beet sugar factories before such competitor could start its business, or has purchased or contracted for all available sugar beets in -10-
the neighborhood, or that it has thereby, or at all, made it impossible for the competitor to engage in business. XVII This defendant denies that at any time it has been or now is engaged in any unlawful combination or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce among or between the several states and territories of the United States, or with foreign nations, in raw sugar, sugar beets, refined sugar, molasses, syrups, or other by-products of raw sugar or sugar beets, or to monopolize the same; or that such or any unlawful combination or conspiracy existed or is the result or outgrowth of a series, or of any, wrongful acts of this defendant, or of any participation therein by this defendant, or that this defendant has participated in any acts, agreements, or combinations with other defendants, or any other person or corporation, or has been actuated by a wrongful or other intent to restrain interstate or foreign trade or commerce in raw or refined sugar or related articles, or that it has participated in such restraint at all, or monopolized, or attempted to monopolize, the same or any part thereof. XVIII This defendant admits that in the sugar trade freight is a very important item, and that the territory in which a sugar refining concern can profitably sell in competition depends largely upon the available rates of transportation; that in the beet sugar industry the establishment of refining plants must necessarily be near the plantations or beet growing farms, and away from populous centers, where freight rates are generally not favorable; that beets cannot be kept long in storage, and -11-
that a plant using them can operate only about 100 days during the fall and early winter of each year, but this defendant denies that the raw article can be transported at any less cost than the refined, or that its output cannot be stored without great cost, or that, speaking commercially, or otherwise, such output must go into the markets at once, but on the contrary, this defendant alleges that beet sugar can be stored as readily and for as great a length of time as any other sugar. XIX This defendant denies that at any time, or at all, for the purpose of deceiving or defrauding purchasers, or for any other purpose, it has misbranded or sold in interstate trade or commerce the refined sugar of others, under the pretence that the same was its own product of a particular grade or quality, or that it has at any time, through such misbranding, or at all, sold its own product as that of another. XX Defendant denies that it has or does conceal its ownership or interest, or that it has now, or ever has had any ownership or interest in any other sugar refining company or concern within the United States or elsewhere, or that by any act of this defendant it has misled or deceived consumers of refined sugar or any other person or corporation whatsoever. -12-
XXI This defendant denies that it has from time to time, or at all, done many, or any unlawful acts, or that any of its acts were for the unlawful purposes stated in the petition herein, or for any other unlawful purpose, or with any wrongful or other intent to bring about any unlawful combination or conspiracy; that any act of this defendant or any of its agents, employes, officers or directors was done for the purpose of extinguishing competition, or for the purpose of establishing an unlawful or any monopoly in the United States or elsewhere, in interstate trade or commerce in raw sugar, sugar beets, refined sugar, molasses, syrups, or other by-products of raw sugar or sugar beets, or that any acts of this defendant were or are unlawful attempts to monopolize such trade or commerce, or that as a result thereof, or at all, any combination or conspiracy exists. XXII This defendant does not understand that the allegations and charges contained in that part of the petition, commencing with the first paragraph on page 98 of the printed copy of the petition herein, has reference to any acts of this defendant; but if otherwise, this defendant, upon information and belief, denies that in the summer of 1901, or at any time, or at all, the American Sugar Refining Company intended to destroy the competition of beet sugar companies, or that it manufactured an enormous quantity of refined sugar, or in excess of any previous production by it in any similar period, or that such production was for the purpose of selling or delivering it in the territories where the beet sugar companies usually -13-
marketed their product, or that it was intended by the said defendant, the American Sugar Refining Company, to sell the same at a price at which the said beet sugar companies could not afford to sell, or that the said American Sugar Refining Company, anywhere or at all intended to sell such product at a price below the actual cost of production; or that in 1901 or 1902, or any other year, the American Sugar Refining Company, reduced the selling price of sugar below the cost of production, or reduced it at all, in the available markets of the competing beet sugar concerns; or that thereby, or at all, it rendered it impossible for the latter to profitably operate, or that in this, or in any other way, or at all, the beet sugar concerns were harassed, or that a state of affairs was brought about which, if continued, meant their financial destruction, or that the owners of the beet sugar concerns, or any of them, were compelled to either face almost inevitable ruin, or to sell out to the American Sugar refining Company; or that thereupon the American Sugar Refining Company influenced, directed, or in any manner sought to secure the control of the beet sugar concerns for the purpose of destroying competition, or for the purpose of restraining the trade, or for the purpose of strengthening any monopoly in such a way as appeared feasible, or at all, or with effect of doing any of said things. 14

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Materials may be used for non-profit and educational purposes; please credit Special Collections Department, Stewart Library, Weber State University.

Full-Text

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : vs. : THE AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY AND OTHERS, : Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x Answer of Amalgamated Sugar Company. Comes now the defendant, Amalgamated Sugar Company, and for answer to the petition herein: I Admits that it is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Utah, with office and principal place of business at Ogden, Utah; that its authorized capital stock is Four Million Dollars, which at the time of the filing of the petition herein consisted of 26,666 shares of Preferred Stock and 13,334 shares of Common Stock, each of the par value of One Hundred Dollars, of which only 17,010 shares of Preferred stock and 8,504 shares of Common stock were issued and outstanding; that since 1902 it has owned and operated factories for the manufacture and refining of sugar, located respectively at Logan, Utah, Ogden, Utah, and La Grande, Oregon; that at all such times it has been engaged in interstate trade and commerce in beet sugar; and that defendants, David Eccles and Joseph F. Smith, together with the persons named in the petition, constitute its Board of Directors and officers. II Admits that the Ogden Sugar Company was incorporated under the laws of Utah in January, 1898, with an authorized capital stock of the par value of $500,000.00; and that from October, 1898, to July, 1902, it operated its factory at Ogden, Utah, and was engaged in interstate trade and commerce in beet sugar. Admits that the Logan Sugar Company was incorporated under the laws of Utah in December, 1901, with an authorized capital stock of the par value of $500,000.00; and that prior to July, 1902, it operated its factory at Logan, Utah, and was engaged in interstate trade and commerce in beet sugar. Admits that the Oregon Sugar Company was incorporated under the laws of Oregon, in February 1898, with an authorized capital stock of the par value of $500,00.00; and that from October, 1898, to July, 1902, it operated its factory at La Grande, Oregon, and was engaged in interstate trade and commerce in beet sugar. Admits that these three companies were at all such times and ever since have been independent of all other beet or cane sugar refining companies in the United States, but this defendant denies that said Ogden Sugar Company, Logan Sugar Company or Oregon Sugar Company were at any time in active competition with each other, or were incorporated for such purposes, but on the contrary, that during their entire corporate existence they were in fact only branches, factories or departments of the same concern, and although incorporated separately for commercial and legal convenience, yet they were at all times owned and controlled by substantially the same stockholders, and operated under the direction of substantially the same persons, holding positions of directors and officers in each of such respective legal entities, and that substantially the same stockholders and substantially the same directors and officers who owned the stock and controlled the affairs of said constituent corporations, do now own the stock and control the affairs, and all times since its organization, -2-
have owned the stock and controlled the affairs of this defendant, Amalgamated Sugar Company. III This defendant denies that in May, 1902, or at any other time, or at all, the defendant, David Eccles, acting for himself, or in conjunction with Henry O. Havemeyer for the American Sugar Refining Company, or at all, purchased one-half or any other portion of the issued capital stock of the Ogden Sugar Company, Logan Sugar Company, or Oregon Sugar Company; but alleges the facts to be, that on or about May, 1902, the American Sugar Refining Company, agreed to and with defendant, David Eccles, acting for and on behalf of the principal stockholders and directors of the said corporation, that the said American Sugar Refining Company should purchase from each of the stockholders of each of said companies, one-half of such stockholders’ holding. That thereafter each of the stockholders of the interested companies accepted the offer thus made, and authorized the said David Eccles, for and on their behalf, to sell to the said American Sugar Refining Company, one-half of each of their holding, whereby the said American Sugar Refining Company became the owner of one-half of the capital stock of said respective corporations. IV This defendant admits that in July, 1902, the Logan Sugar Company and the Ogden Sugar Company, under and in pursuance of the laws of the State of Utah, were merged and consolidated into one corporation known as the Amalgamated Sugar Company, and that subsequently the Oregon Sugar Company sold all of its properties and assets to
the said Amalgamated Sugar Company, and that thereby the said last-named company became, and now is, the legal owner and holder of all of the property of the Logan Sugar Company, the Ogden Sugar Company, and the Oregon Sugar Company, which properties had theretofore been owned, held and operated, as in this answer heretofore set out. V This defendant denies that the said David Eccles or the said American Sugar refining company, or both, caused the said Ogden Sugar Company and the said Logan Sugar Company, to be merged or that the said sugar companies, or either of them, have been influenced, directed or controlled by the said American Sugar Refining Company in any way. Denies that the said David Eccles or H. O. Havemeyer, or the American Sugar Refining Company, or either, or all of them, caused the Oregon Sugar Company to sell and deliver its factory, or any or all of its assets to the Amalgamated Sugar Company, or that the said American Sugar Refining Company, or H.O. Havemeyer, or David Eccles, or this defendant, or either, or all, or any of them, restrained the said Oregon Sugar Company from engaging in any business, or that it is restrained at all. VI This defendant denies that ever since August, 1902, or at all, it has been dominated or controlled by, or acting in cooperation or concert with, the American Sugar Refining Company, or any other corporation, or person, except its own duly elected Board of Directors; but alleges the facts to be that neither the said American Sugar Refining Company, nor any of its agents, officers -4-
or employes have ever demanded, suggested, or proposed to have any person represent it upon the Board of Directors of said Amalgamated Sugar Company; nor has it now, or ever had any representative on such Board; nor has any person interested in the American Sugar Refining Company, ever been present at, or participated in the proceedings of the stockholders’ or directors’ meetings of the said Amalgamated Sugar Company. VII This defendant denies that the officers and directors of this Company were or are elected by the American Sugar Refining Company, or by any other person or corporation except the stockholders of this defendant company, or that the business or affairs of this Company were or are conducted in unison or free from competition with the American Sugar Refining Company, or any other company, in which said American Sugar Refining Company held or holds stock; or that this defendant cooperated with any of the other defendant companies, or any other companies in such business, trade or commerce, or that this defendant at any time agreed or now agrees with its co-defendants, or either, or any of them, as to the markets in which, or the time when, or the price at which its refined sugar shall or should be sold, or that any selling was or is done by this defendant at the instance, direction, request or suggestion, or any person or corporation whatsoever. VIII Denies that the American Sugar Refining Company, -5-
or any of its agents, officers or employes at any time, or in any way, directed, suggested or advised, or in any manner dominated or controlled, or attempted to dominate or control the said Amalgamated Sugar company, or any of its officers, agents or employes in any matter, and especially not in relation to any matter concerning the management or conduct of its business, or the purchase or sale of its raw or manufactured products, or the price at which same should be marketed, or the amount that should be produced, or the territory in which same should be sold or purchased. IX This defendant denies that through the American Sugar Refining Company, or otherwise, or at all, it has or does hold stock in, or dominates the affairs of, or is acting in cooperation or concert with fourteen, or any other number of beet sugar companies, or that this defendant, through the American Sugar Refining Company, or otherwise, or at all, holds stock in or has at any time dominated the affairs of, or is acting in cooperation or concert with, the companies designated in the petition as the “Utah group”, or that by an action of this defendant, interstate commerce is unreasonably, or unlawfully, or at all, restrained or monopolized. X This defendant denies the existence of any aggregation of sugar companies, known as the “Utah group”, or that such term has ever been applied or used prior to its origin in the petition herein, and this defendant also denies that in the summer of 1901 four separate or distinct or competing concerns were engaged in the manufacture of, or in the interstate trade or commerce in, -6-
beet sugar in the states designated in the petition as belonging to the “Utah group”, but avers the facts to be that the Utah Sugar Company was then an organized concern with sugar factories and slicing stations situated in Southern Utah; that the Logan Sugar factory was neither operated nor organized until late in the fall of 1901; and alleges that the Ogden Sugar Company, having a factory in Northern Utah, and the Oregon Sugar Company, having a factory in Eastern Oregon, in connection with the subsequently erected Logan factory aforesaid, were then and ever have been owned, operated, controlled and conducted as in this answer heretofore set out. XI Defendant denies that the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company was organized for the purpose of obstructing interstate trade or commerce in beet sugar, either by combining competing concerns or by acquiring a monopoly or parts of the same, or that as the principal instrumentality, or at all, the said Utah-Idaho Sugar Company dominates the beet sugar industry in the so-called “Utah group” of States, or so far as this defendant is concerned, prevents effective competition, or attempts to, or does unlawfully, or at all, restrain interstate trade or commerce, or monopolizes a part thereof, or monopolizes it at all. XII This defendant denies that it has for its purpose or object the controlling power or direction over all or any, persons or corporations in the United States engaged in interstate or foreign trade or commerce, in raw sugar, -7-
sugar beets, refined sugar, molasses, syrups, or other by-products of raw sugar or sugar beets, or over all or any interstate trade or commerce, or over the management or conduct thereof by all or any persons or corporations, or to prevent, restrain or destroy all or any competition therein among said or any persons or corporations, or to prevent or restrain all or any persons from engaging independently in such trade or commerce, or from competing with it therein, or to control or arbitrarily fix the times when, or the places where, or the amounts in which, or the price at which, raw sugar or sugar beets may be purchased, or refined sugar or other by-products may be sold, or that such prices are to be, or are, arbitrary or non-competitive, or not the result of the untrammeled working of the law of supply and demand, or that the price in the case of raw sugar or sugar beets is to be lower, or in the case of refined sugar or by-products is to be higher, than would otherwise obtain, or that this defendant is engaged in any unlawful or other combination or conspiracy, or that any of these things have to a great degree, or at all, been accomplished by this defendant to the irreparable injury or damage of the people of the United States, or at all. XIII This defendant denies that it is combining or concerting with any other company or person, with the purpose or effect of preventing competition, or unlawfully, or at all, restraining interstate or foreign trade or commerce in sugar or related articles, or that it is acquiring or holding a monopoly thereof, or that it is attempting to monopolize, or that it is in combination or conspiracy with any other person or corporation to monopolize parts of the trade or commerce in such commodities; and alleges -8-
that it is impossible for this defendant to do so, its entire output being less than two-fifths of one per cent. of the sugar sold or consumed in the United States. XIV Defendant denies that it has ever made, or does now make agreements with any other person or corporation whatsoever, to apportion, or that it has apportioned with any person or corporation whatever, the trade or commerce in raw or refined sugar, or sugar beets in the United States; or that it has by itself, or in conjunction with any other person or corporation, defined or apportioned the territory in the United States, in which, or the time during which, any of them should be allowed to assist each other to control or monopolize the sale of its refined sugar in such territory; or that by such or any power, or by any unlawful agreements, combinations or conspiracies, or at all, it has been able to control, or has controlled, or does now control or fix the price at which raw sugar or sugar beets are purchased, or at which refined sugar is sold, by any person or corporation in the United States, engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling refined sugar; or that for the purpose of reducing the demand for raw sugar, or the market price thereof, or for the purpose of reducing the amount of refined sugar manufactured, or for the purpose of increasing the demand therefor, or for any other purpose, this defendant has from time to time, or at all, closed down, dismantled or sold numerous or any sugar refineries or factories belonging to it, or which it had purchased from previous competitors, or from any other person or corporation whatsoever. XV This defendant denies that by the use of enormous -9-
or any wealth, or as a result of combination or conspiracy, or at all, this defendant has been able to, or has sold its sugar at less than cost in order to drive competition out of the sugar trade, or that it has repeatedly, or at any time done so, or has caused great or any loss or damage to competitors, or that as a result thereof many, or any, competitors, either out of fear of total loss or destruction, or otherwise, or at all, have at any time sold their factories or business to this defendant, or have permanently or at all retired from such business, or that by the use of great or any wealth, or at all, this defendant has erected factories or operated the same in neighborhoods where independent concerns were about to enter the sugar trade as its competitors, or that, having erected such factories, it has operated the same and sold its finished product at less than the current price therefore, or that thereby, or at all, it has made it impossible for any man, or combination of men of moderate or any other means, to engage in such business, or that the result has been that such or any prospective competitors have been prevented or restrained in any manner from entering or engaging therein, or have been prevented or restrained at all. XVI This defendant denies that at any time when independent concerns have undertaken to start in the beet sugar business, this defendant has, upon learning thereof, or at all, gone into the immediate neighborhood of such proposed competitors, and by the means of great or any wealth, or at all, erected or put into operation beet sugar factories before such competitor could start its business, or has purchased or contracted for all available sugar beets in -10-
the neighborhood, or that it has thereby, or at all, made it impossible for the competitor to engage in business. XVII This defendant denies that at any time it has been or now is engaged in any unlawful combination or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce among or between the several states and territories of the United States, or with foreign nations, in raw sugar, sugar beets, refined sugar, molasses, syrups, or other by-products of raw sugar or sugar beets, or to monopolize the same; or that such or any unlawful combination or conspiracy existed or is the result or outgrowth of a series, or of any, wrongful acts of this defendant, or of any participation therein by this defendant, or that this defendant has participated in any acts, agreements, or combinations with other defendants, or any other person or corporation, or has been actuated by a wrongful or other intent to restrain interstate or foreign trade or commerce in raw or refined sugar or related articles, or that it has participated in such restraint at all, or monopolized, or attempted to monopolize, the same or any part thereof. XVIII This defendant admits that in the sugar trade freight is a very important item, and that the territory in which a sugar refining concern can profitably sell in competition depends largely upon the available rates of transportation; that in the beet sugar industry the establishment of refining plants must necessarily be near the plantations or beet growing farms, and away from populous centers, where freight rates are generally not favorable; that beets cannot be kept long in storage, and -11-
that a plant using them can operate only about 100 days during the fall and early winter of each year, but this defendant denies that the raw article can be transported at any less cost than the refined, or that its output cannot be stored without great cost, or that, speaking commercially, or otherwise, such output must go into the markets at once, but on the contrary, this defendant alleges that beet sugar can be stored as readily and for as great a length of time as any other sugar. XIX This defendant denies that at any time, or at all, for the purpose of deceiving or defrauding purchasers, or for any other purpose, it has misbranded or sold in interstate trade or commerce the refined sugar of others, under the pretence that the same was its own product of a particular grade or quality, or that it has at any time, through such misbranding, or at all, sold its own product as that of another. XX Defendant denies that it has or does conceal its ownership or interest, or that it has now, or ever has had any ownership or interest in any other sugar refining company or concern within the United States or elsewhere, or that by any act of this defendant it has misled or deceived consumers of refined sugar or any other person or corporation whatsoever. -12-
XXI This defendant denies that it has from time to time, or at all, done many, or any unlawful acts, or that any of its acts were for the unlawful purposes stated in the petition herein, or for any other unlawful purpose, or with any wrongful or other intent to bring about any unlawful combination or conspiracy; that any act of this defendant or any of its agents, employes, officers or directors was done for the purpose of extinguishing competition, or for the purpose of establishing an unlawful or any monopoly in the United States or elsewhere, in interstate trade or commerce in raw sugar, sugar beets, refined sugar, molasses, syrups, or other by-products of raw sugar or sugar beets, or that any acts of this defendant were or are unlawful attempts to monopolize such trade or commerce, or that as a result thereof, or at all, any combination or conspiracy exists. XXII This defendant does not understand that the allegations and charges contained in that part of the petition, commencing with the first paragraph on page 98 of the printed copy of the petition herein, has reference to any acts of this defendant; but if otherwise, this defendant, upon information and belief, denies that in the summer of 1901, or at any time, or at all, the American Sugar Refining Company intended to destroy the competition of beet sugar companies, or that it manufactured an enormous quantity of refined sugar, or in excess of any previous production by it in any similar period, or that such production was for the purpose of selling or delivering it in the territories where the beet sugar companies usually -13-
marketed their product, or that it was intended by the said defendant, the American Sugar Refining Company, to sell the same at a price at which the said beet sugar companies could not afford to sell, or that the said American Sugar Refining Company, anywhere or at all intended to sell such product at a price below the actual cost of production; or that in 1901 or 1902, or any other year, the American Sugar Refining Company, reduced the selling price of sugar below the cost of production, or reduced it at all, in the available markets of the competing beet sugar concerns; or that thereby, or at all, it rendered it impossible for the latter to profitably operate, or that in this, or in any other way, or at all, the beet sugar concerns were harassed, or that a state of affairs was brought about which, if continued, meant their financial destruction, or that the owners of the beet sugar concerns, or any of them, were compelled to either face almost inevitable ruin, or to sell out to the American Sugar refining Company; or that thereupon the American Sugar Refining Company influenced, directed, or in any manner sought to secure the control of the beet sugar concerns for the purpose of destroying competition, or for the purpose of restraining the trade, or for the purpose of strengthening any monopoly in such a way as appeared feasible, or at all, or with effect of doing any of said things. 14